A Boston College sports blog capturing the highs and lows of being a BC fan living 1,000 miles from Chestnut Hill.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

HD's recap and other links

HD recapped all the ACC teams including BC. JP Giglio is also looking towards the fall. You can sense a narrative building and I expect the preview magazines to take it all one step further. Everyone will think we are going to be bad.

I can understand a post-JoePa hangover...or a post-Bobby Bowden hangover...or even a post-Charlie Weiss hangover despite his lack of success. but i really don't think we are missing TOB too much these days.

I know everyone is on Cloud 9 after 2 top notch seasons, but I caution everyone about a myopic vision of greatness. BC does not have a quarterback...period. This is by far the most important position in football and, right now, BC can not compete at the ACC level at this position. Sure we have great running backs and promising receivers to go with what should be a great O-line. But someone has to feed them the ball.

I still feel BC goes bowling, but I predict losses at Clemson, at Va Tech, vs. NC State and at Notre Dame. Wake and Florida State can go either way. So were looking at 8-4 which is still a decent season. Of course, if a QB emerges, 10 wins is a possibility with our very good defense and what should be a great running game.

If there's one league out there where you can get away with QB as your weakest position, though, it's the ACC. Great league, but it hasn't had more than a good QB or two at a time for a while now. In general, the QB position has been markedly--and notoriously--down ever since BC arrived (which is why Ryan was largely discredited by the national college football media even though the NFL guys were all over him all along).

I'm concerned about more than QB for BC. If that turns out to be the only problem, they can be in that 8-4 to 10-2 range. But if another change in the blocking schemes backfires and they can't shut down the run on D without Brace and Raji clogging the middle... well, ruh-roh.

Darius and Claver, I was just about to say the same thing. Think about this for a second: Russell Wilson is, without question, the best and most complete QB in the ACC. Think about that. Take another minute to let it set in. This league is tilted so heavily towards defense that FSU and VT will be the preseason favorites with Christian Ponder and Tyrod Taylor under center. Next year's ACC QB play will likely be terrible. In other words, I don't think it will be the difference between 6-6 and 10-2 seasons for the Eagles. Is it a problem? Sure. But the bigger issues are losing so many interior linemen: Brace, Raji, Ramsey, Poles. Linebackers like Francois and Toal. A TE like Purvis. Still not having a kicker. Honestly, the kicking game is more likely to cost us games than the QB play. If Davis/Tuggle/Boek can be even league-average (ie, not very good), then this team should be in it for the division title once again.

I totally agree with BCNorCal about the kicking situation. It would be nice to take a few shots at 3 points from beyond 25 yards.

I am less concerned about the defense. Our secondary is solid and several linebackers were impressive in the spring season including Clancy and Williams. Yes, losing Brace and Raji is a challenge, but I believe Scafe will step up and Dillon Quinn may be good enough to start as a true freshman. What the defense really needs is a rush end to pressure the opposing QB's.

I hope those of you that feel we can win with a mediocre QB are right. Here is what has me worried. Our strength will be the running game. However, we will be operating out of a pro-style offense, which means defenses can simply place 9 guys in the box and shut the running game down. Thus, we need a QB to stretch the field and pass to keep the safeties from creeping up. Right now, we don't have that. The good news is BC has time to develop a QB and my concerns may be proven invalid.

Rationalizing that the QB position isn't important because of the league we're in?

What???

That's absurd.

First, Tyrod Taylor was plenty good enough against us, maybe the best defense in the league last year. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and he ran around us enough to get the job done. Our guys don't do anything particularly well.

It will absolutely be the difference b/t 7-5 and 9-3. Without a doubt. Ha. Did you watch the Vandy game? That'll be a microcosm of what this season will be like, if a QB doesn't get his act together.

You expect Davis to be that much better b/c he started two games? Please. Consider him a first year starter...if he wins the job.

Yes the kicking game, or lack thereof, will hurt. Of course it will. So will losing Raji and Brace. But all of that pales in comparison to not having a guy leading the team to first downs and scores. Because, as good as the defense may be, their worth will be mitigated by the fact that they're always on the field. Going into a game knowing you have to hold a team to 10 points rarely wins games...unless you're the 2000Baltimore Ravens.

All of you downplaying the poor play of the QB position and what that would mean...I mean, I know the offseason is the time for optimism, but, even that is a bit much.

CT, perhaps I didn't explain my point well enough. The point isn't that poor QB play will hurt this team. Of course it will. I just don't think that it's the biggest problem with our team. My opinion on our problems: kicking>interior line play>QB play.

The point is that this league does not feature good QB play. This isn't the Big 12 or the SEC. It's the ACC with all of the bad offense that goes along with it. So performance and expectation should be normalized against the mean. For example, Russell Wilson would not have sniffed all-conference in either the Big 12 or SEC. Yet he's far and away the best in the ACC. In this conference, a team that can run the ball, stop the run and kick field goals should be able to win a lot of games without getting much from the QB.

Is the QB position going to stand between us going 9-3 and 12-0? Yes. Is it going to prevent us from going 9-3? It didn't last year because we could run and stop the run. If this team can control the lines and kick field goals (why the eff can't we kick field goals? WHY?), we should have a very good chance of winning the division.

I'll cede the point that the QBs in the ACC are not, right now, as talented as those in the Big 12 or SEC (though QB play in the SEC is vastly overrated--name the QB at USC, Miss. St., UT, Vandy, Arkansas, Auburn, LSU).

But we're also prognosticating based on what we saw last year. And. It. Was. Abysmal.

Doesn't matter what conference you're in, if Davis plays even incrementally better than he did vs. Va. Tech and Vandy--absolutely atrociously--there's no way we can win 9 games.

Doesn't matter how good the defense is/becomes if they are ALWAYS on the field. They'll wind up giving up more points than they should due to fatigue, short fields, etc.

Davis has the unique potential to be the best player on the field...for the other team.

Since he's not mobile, and he doesn't have a particularly strong arm, he better be accurate. And he's not.

The inability to recruit a kicker is an entirely separate issue and one we can all agree with. The same goes for kickoffs and kickoff coverage.

The QB will, as it stands now, based on what we saw last year, certainly keep us from having a season we've grown accustomed to. The difference between 6 or 7 wins and 9, I would argue, is pretty much all QB--those games when you need to outscore the other team or need a late drive to win. The difference between 9 wins and 12 wins...I don't think we'll have to worry about that for the forseeable future.